Pith. sign in

REVIEW

SN2017jgh - A high-cadence complete shock cooling lightcurve of a SN IIb with the Kepler telescope

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2108.06654 v1 pith:HUWTIFBS submitted 2021-08-15 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

SN2017jgh - A high-cadence complete shock cooling lightcurve of a SN IIb with the Kepler telescope

classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR
keywords envelopeshockodotprogenitorkeplerlightcurvelikelymass
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

SN 2017jgh is a type IIb supernova discovered by Pan-STARRS during the C16/C17 campaigns of the Kepler/K2 mission. Here we present the Kepler/K2 and ground based observations of SN 2017jgh, which captured the shock cooling of the progenitor shock breakout with an unprecedented cadence. This event presents a unique opportunity to investigate the progenitors of stripped envelope supernovae. By fitting analytical models to the SN 2017jgh lightcurve, we find that the progenitor of SN 2017jgh was likely a yellow supergiant with an envelope radius of $\sim50-290~R_{\odot}$, and an envelope mass of $\sim0-1.7~M_{\odot}$. SN 2017jgh likely had a shock velocity of $\sim7500-10300$ km s$^{-1}$. Additionally, we use the lightcurve of SN 2017jgh to investigate how early observations of the rise contribute to constraints on progenitor models. Fitting just the ground based observations, we find an envelope radius of $\sim50-330~R_{\odot}$, an envelope mass of $\sim0.3-1.7~M_{\odot}$ and a shock velocity of $\sim9,000-15,000$ km s$^{-1}$. Without the rise, the explosion time can not be well constrained which leads to a systematic offset in the velocity parameter and larger uncertainties in the mass and radius. Therefore, it is likely that progenitor property estimates through these models may have larger systematic uncertainties than previously calculated.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.